hi, yes, I have gotten further and I also have written some code. However, I don't want have a working version yet and I don't want to write any more code until the issues are sorted out that are discussed in these two threads:

the main problem is that traditional TTD signalling works with "blocks". However, my PBS signals work with individual track segments, which can be reserved by a train or not. Therefore, these two signalling types are not very compatible.

<Noldo> you mean that one user can only have one or the other? <-- No, I mean that there are 8 types. PBS may be added to any of the current 4 signal types, resulting in a total of 8 types, and presignal systems will continue to behave like presignal systems, regardless of the presence or absence of the PBS bit.

<Tekky> Therefore, these two signalling types are not very compatible. <-- "Not compatible within a single block", you mean. Why you have some blocks that are reserved section by section, and other blocks that are "reserved" as a single unit?

i would do away with the block behaviour altogether, and then introduce "compatibility" signals, that simulate the block behaviour, and while that switch is activated, maybe disable some of the more advanced new signal behaviours (e.g. different levels of "weak reservations")

Maybe I'm just too TTDPatch-centric, but what does PBS have to do with the signal state? Either the signal is red or the signal is green. PBS only changes whether the train will pass the signal, not what state the signal shows.

But you said that having both old things and new things is bad, and the new thing should instead simulate the old thing. Therefore any new $FOO should be able to simulate all old @FOO. Why does this change when $FOO = "processor" and @FOO contains both "PPC" and "x86"?

<DaleStan> Maybe I'm just too TTDPatch-centric, but what does PBS have to do with the signal state? Either the signal is red or the signal is green. PBS only changes whether the train will pass the signal, not what state the signal shows. <-- In my new PBS system, signals will react to trains and trains instead of vice-versa. For example, all signals will show red by default and

whoops, I made a little mistake in my last message. Here it is again: In my new PBS system, signals will react to trains instead of vice-versa. For example, all signals will show red by default and will only show green when a train has reserved a route past the signal.

<Tekky> will only show green when a train has reserved a route past the signal. <- exactly, and you can simulate the old behaviour by reserving ALL tracks behind the signal, instead of just the ones the train is going to pass

Which can actually be done in TTDPatch, with PBS and a bit of signal programming. It's quite possible to use programmable signals to make a signal always show red. This is not obviously useful, but PBS allows a train to pass a red signal if it can find a path to its destination.

<Eddi|zuHause> except if i told the signal to never turn green< -- But you didn't. Not entirely, anyway. You also told it to "behave like a PBS signal." And "behave like a PBS signal" means, "regardless of any other instructions, allow a train to pass if it can find a path." If you want an impassible signal, you have to remove "behave like a PBS signal" from the equation

SmatZ: Basically, yes. In fact, the red/green state is cosmetic for all signals. All that is really relevant is the presence or absense of a signal, and under what circumstances it would allow a train to pass. Whether it would allow a completely non-existent train to pass were it to materialize right now is uninteresting.

<SmatZ> DaleStan: that is a deep thought... we can have game without any signals when there is "working PBS" (virtual signal on each trackdir) <--- Yes, this also exists in reality. For example, here in Germany, all trains that go beyond 160 km/h (100mph) don't obey any standard train signals. Instead, the train's maximum speed is at all times controlled by the CTC (centralized traffic control).

hehe, I once made a patch which disabled trains from obeying signals. I made all trains think that signals show green. Before I activated the patch, I had 140 trains on my network. A minute later, I had only about 4 or 5 trains on my network :)

Once my new PBS system is running, the signalling system will be train-driven and no longer signal-driven, as it is now. Therefore, I plan to introduce programmable trains in contrast to TTDPatch's programmable signals. Programmable trains seem more meaningful than programmable signals in a network which is train-driven and not signal-driven. Maybe the timetables could be

the entire world has to be calculated locally for all players for them to sync up, for bigger games, a small device like a handheld might not be able to keep up, and it'll certainly suck quite a bit of battery

remember, there's more to a http request than "get this URL for me"... you can have lots of different fields in there, i'm not sure if that's how svn specifically operates. hell, grab a packet sniffer and find out :-)

train timetabling - how about "synchronous" orders, like shared orders but only one vehicle is allowed to occupy one order on the list at once, they all swap orders at the same time when they're all ready? hmm

As far as I know, acceleration with the current realistic acceleration patch is a constant force. In reality, however, trains start accelerating faster and then stop accelerating gradually, before they reach their maximum speed. This is similar to a car.